Benefits Likely Outweigh Costs for National Monuments in the American West
New peer-reviewed research describes the history of the 1906 Antiquities Act (used to create national monuments), the controversies that have swirled around monument designation, and findings in the peer-reviewed literature about their impacts on surrounding communities.
Do the societal benefits of national monuments on US public lands outweigh the opportunity cost of forgone development and resource extraction? The answer is “yes,” according to a new study by Resources for the Future researcher Margaret Walls.
Walls’s new peer-reviewed study, published recently in Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, explains the motivation for the Antiquities Act, which is used to create national monuments; describes the myriad controversies surrounding national monument designations; and reviews the literature on societal benefits, costs, and economic impacts of monuments and other similarly protected lands.
Walls finds that the national monuments designated thus far have generated benefits in excess of costs and have not hurt local economies—in fact, in some cases, monument designations have increased the number of businesses and jobs in nearby communities. She also offers an explanation for why, in light of these findings, monuments continue to generate controversy, concluding that weak economic growth in rural areas over the last two decades is often wrongly laid at the feet of public lands policies, including the designation of monuments.
“National monuments protect important historic and cultural resources, while also providing some spectacular outdoor recreational opportunities,” says Walls. “According to my research, these benefits have outweighed any costs. Nonetheless, conflicts over how to use our public lands in the U.S. are long-standing and likely to continue in the future.”
Walls predicts that the Antiquities Act—which states that the US president may unilaterally create monuments—will continue to be put to the test. The act states that monuments “shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper management,” a clause which has notably been used in recent years by the Trump administration to reduce the size of two national monuments in Utah (Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante).
To learn more about these findings, check out the article, “Public Land Conflicts and Controversies: The Designation of National Monuments in the Western United States,” by Margaret Walls. If you are unable to access the article, email Lauren Dunlap for more information.
Note: This is not an open-access article; to read the full article, please request permission from the journal.
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.
